Views: 0<\/p>
[Note: <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Brief Articles<\/strong>\u00a0 2 page.]<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Believers can\u2019t deny that some who claim to be \u201cChristians\u201d are odd (said oddities occurring not because of, but in spite of the Bible). Believers don\u2019t have a patent on oddness, however. Atheists partake of an innate strangeness that stems directly from their anti-God, pro-evolution credo.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Among the \u201cnew wave\u201d of stellar militant, belligerent infidels is the British Oxford scholar, Richard Dawkins. His 2006 book, The God Delusion<\/em>, boldly aims at converting every believer to his atheism. Obviously, either too few have read it, or he didn\u2019t do a very effective job. Many millions (whether odd or not-odd) still believe in God.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>One of the inherent \u201codd\u201d components of atheism is its espousal of certain moral and ethical tenets. For example, Dawkins denounces the Muslims for their murderous response to the Danish Mohammed cartoons awhile back (no disagreement there). He labels God as a vindictive, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, bully (and that\u2019s just half his list). Further, he points to Abraham\u2019s dishonesty about Sarah, the Levite\u2019s dismemberment of his concubine, Jephthah\u2019s vow, Lot\u2019s incest, and other historical records in the Bible, clearly judging such as morally unacceptable (again, no argument). He holds some things to be wrong and others right.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 But why does he, and whence does his moral outrage arise? Where do men get their morals? He first suggests a \u201cscientific\u201d (i.e., evolutionary) ground for our \u201cmoral\u201d behavior toward each other (which silliness a man of his intellect should be ashamed to proffer). A second hypothesis for the source of our moral sense is zeitgeist<\/em> (\u201cthe spirit of the age\u201d)\u2014merely another stab at an evolutionary explanation.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Grant for argument\u2019s sake that morals arrived through the evolution pipeline and all we have is the way<\/strong> they got here. How does one explain the inclination to conform to them\u2014the oughtness<\/strong> of moral principles? If we are mere soulless combinations of protoplasm who, against incredible odds, arrived at the \u201chuman stage\u201d of evolution through natural selection (still occurring, mind you), how can any behavior be praised or condemned? Why is murder worse than hymn singing, lying worse than honesty, or raping worse than protecting a child? Dawkins at last has nothing to offer besides personal choice<\/strong> as his arbiter between good and evil.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 No behavior can be abnormal<\/strong> or immoral<\/strong> if there is no transcendental objective moral standard<\/strong>. Only in God and the Bible do we have that objective standard and the oughtness <\/strong>that tugs at us to obey it (John 12:48; 3 John 11).<\/span><\/p>\n [Note: <\/strong>I wrote this article for and it appeared in the Denton Record-Chronicle, <\/em>June 19, 2009.]<\/span><\/p>\n Attribution<\/strong>: From thescripturecache.com<\/em>; Dub McClish, owner and administrator.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Views: 0[Note: This MS is available in larger font on our Brief Articles\u00a0 2 page.] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Believers can\u2019t deny that some who claim to be \u201cChristians\u201d are odd (said oddities occurring not because of, but in spite of the Bible). Believers don\u2019t have a patent…<\/p>\n